Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2d 42
Appellant's application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and he appeals. We
affirm.
Appellant claims that his constitutional rights were violated because (1) the
indictment on which his trial was based charged not larceny by false pretenses
but larceny by false promise, which was not then a crime, (2) there was no
evidence to support the conviction, (3) the charge to the jury was erroneous,
and (4) the trial was fundamentally unfair because of prejudicial comments by
the trial judge. The district court carefully considered each of these contentions.
No adequate reason is offered by appellant for our disturbing that court's
conclusions.
4
Habeas corpus is not available to test the sufficiency of the indictment. United
States ex rel. Tangredi v. Wallack, 343 F.2d 752 (2d Cir. 1965).
The objections to the correctness of the judge's charge and to the sufficiency of
the evidence fail to raise questions of constitutional dimension.
Appellant also contends that his conviction for failure to file annual reports in
violation of New York General Business Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 20,
Section 352-e(8) is invalid because the statute is void for vagueness and in any
event does not apply to him. Since appellant was given a suspended sentence of
one year on this count, and that year had expired when the decision below was
handed down, federal habeas corpus is not available to challenge it.
Affirmed.